In a mirror retrieval method,

This is the first time I can remember ever doing the retrieval in this way. Somewhere around 5:30 AM I was awakened by lightning and thunder, a little unusual for winter in Florida. Remembering that I had planned to visit my friend Rosalie to check on some unusual visitors in her condo I closed my eyes and intended to find Rosalie at her place. After sensing my arrival I felt around for Rosalie and found her awake and alert standing to my left. I explained that I'd come to check out the ghosts she and I had e-mail back and forth about recently. Then, after a brief discussion I placed intent to meet with one of the ghosts. A few moments later a short heavy set man moved past us moving from left to right. There was something odd about him but I couldn't really put my finger on it. Several attempts of using my usual methods to get his attention failed. This guy seemed completely oblivious to my presence. Stepping back for a moment to assess the situation Rosalie and I sort of floated along with him as I gathered more impressions of the man. His movements and demeanor were robot-like. Focusing my attention on that I realized that he appeared to be hollow for lack of a better term. It was like there was very little substance to him, to the point of him being somewhat transparent and a dull gray color. Taking this all in I suddenly realized what I was looking at was an aspect or fragment of a person. I've dealt with retrieving aspects in the past, and knowing that they are sometimes hard to reach, I cranked my efforts up a notch or two to get him to notice me .

I moved to a position directly in front of him and began making faces at him, waving my hands around in front of his eyes, and when that didn't work I began talking to him in a louder voice. None of those had the slightest impact on him. He just kept moving along, his face gray and expressionless, with no hint that he was in any way aware of my presence. I tried harder. I was jumping up and down, yelling and screaming directly into his face. I did everything short of slapping him, all to no avail. I stepped back again to reassess the situation and talk it over with Rosalie. We came to the conclusion that he was so deeply and tightly focused within his own version of reality that he perceived nothing else. It was like, even though Rosalie's condominium may have been repainted different colors, all of his furniture taken out and hers put in, he was still seeing it just as it had been before his death when he lived there. During retrieval attempts in the past there were situations that were similar and I'd had to resort to locating the aspect' s more whole self. In the past this has meant traveling through some other reality, often focus 27, and then bringing his whole self back into the reality in which the aspect, or fragment, was stuck.

I turned to Rosalie and explained to her my I understanding of the present situation and my plan to locate this person's whole self. I began to feel movement through blackness as if we were slowly flying away from her condo. I took the time to explain to Rosalie that I would need to focus on this person's whole self in order to locate him and go where he was. That I wouldn't be able to split my focus to continue conversation with Rosalie why was doing this, and asked that she just stay close to me and follow along to wherever we went. I didn't want her to think I was ignoring her during this "flight" and I knew my tight focus on finding the guy could make it appear that way to her.

After moving to this blackness for brief time I suddenly found myself back in Rosalie's condominium. I figured my breaking concentration to communicate with Rosalie had brought us back. So I placed intent to be with this guy's more whole self and we took off again only to wind up right back at her condominium again. After several more attempts that ended up back at Rosalie's condominium I stopped and looked around. The man's more whole self was standing in front of me there in the condominium. That came as a bit of a surprise, in the past I'd always had to bring the person there. He then began to explain the situation from his own perspective.

He confirmed that this aspect of himself was a very small fragment existing within the very, very limited version of reality. A version of reality in which he just moved around his condominium aimlessly in what I might describe as a semiconscious dream state. Those are not the exact words he used to describe it, but I think my paraphrase of his explanation will get the point across. I can't remember ever being confronted with an experience like this one. The more whole self had come to meet Rosalie and me there in the condominium instead of me having to try to find him somewhere. He had a very good understanding of the situation in which his aspect was stuck. He understood why it was that he could not successfully retrieved the aspect on his own, he knew that he needed help and, I believe, he had a hand in drawing me into the situation through Rosalie's previous perceptions of the aspect.

As Rosalie and I listened an idea began to form in my mind as a way of approaching the situation to accomplish the retrieval. At some point in our conversation I began to explain this to, for the sake of simplicity let's call him Ernie, and more details of the plan began to unfold in my mind. I would need, as I explained to Ernie, to step into his nonphysical body to add some level of physical reality energy to his presence. This was intended to make him more easily perceivable to his fragment. As a way of getting his fragments attention I would project the image of a full-length mirror around my body and we would take up a position directly in front of his fragment. If we noticed the least bit of awareness of his own mirror image in front of him on the part of his fragment we would mimic every movement the fragment made. That is far as my plan went at that point. Ernie agreed, I stepped his body from behind and imagined the full-length mirror surrounding our bodies. We took a position directly in front of Ernie's fragment and kept pace with his movements staying about 3 to 4 feet in front of him. After a minute or two Ernie's fragment saw what he believed to be a reflection of himself in a mirror in front of him. At that point Ernie's fragment stopped moving.

I could hear the fragments thoughts. "That's odd," the fragment thought to himself, "I've looked at myself in mirrors here in the condo before but there was something wrong with those mirrors because I could never see myself in them. But I can see myself in this one." I did my best to move my body (inside Ernie's body) to mimic the movements of the fragment. Mostly my timing was a little off but that didn't seem to bother the fragment too much. As Ernie's fragment focused more and more on what he perceived to be his own image in a mirror he began to talk to himself, by that I mean, talk out loud to his image in the mirror. Now his lips are moving and I'm trying to mimic those movements in real time, and not doing a very good job of it. As a fragment focuses more and more on his image in the mirror he begins to notice little details like that. At one point he said to his image in the mirror, "you are being very odd. You are not moving like a reflection of me in the mirror, sometimes it's like you are somebody else." Thinking his recognition of this gave me an opening I, as his image in the mirror, began talking back to him.

"You're right Ernie," I said, "sometimes I am acting like somebody else." I immediately realized this was a mistake. Ernie's fragment got a terrible look of fright on his face and turned slightly like he was beginning to move away. I immediately went back to mimicking his movements and felt myself give some control of my body movements over to the more whole version of Ernie, whose nonphysical body I was in. The fragment noticed that his reflection's movements were precisely following his, I felt his fright relax, and he turned once again facing the mirror. He began to move his arms, make faces, and in other ways verifying to himself that his reflection in the mirror was behaving as it should. I felt myself give over more control to Ernie's whole self. I could feel Ernie sending thoughts into his fragment' s mind in a way that is fragment would believe they were his own thoughts. The fragment would then say those thoughts out loud and Ernie was able, even his lip moments, mimic the fragment to the finest detail . 

At first the thoughts of Ernie sent where pretty mundane and ordinary. As things progressed I felt Ernie project thoughts like, "this is a very interesting mirror," and "I wonder what sort of things this mirror might be able to show me," and "this mirror seems almost magical." Then, after some time, "I wonder if I could see myself in this mirror the way I looked when I was 20 years old?" A few moments after the fragment spoke these words to the mirror his reflection briefly flashed to an image of himself when he was 20 years old. After the fragment wondered if he could do this again I felt Ernie flash his own 20 year old image back to his fragment again for a little longer period of time. After some time I felt Ernie send to his fragment the thought, "I wonder if I could see my wife in this magical mirror."  As a look of anticipation came over the fragment' s face my attention was split within two locations. While I remain inside the body of Ernie, I was also standing next to Rosalie talking to her.

"Rosalie," I remember saying, "I think we are going to need your help with this one."  Ernie's wife, let's call her Sue, was now standing next to Rosalie and me. Sue smiled at Rosalie and nodded, indicating that she would appreciate Rosalie's assistance in this retrieval. Rosalie stepped into Sue's body, I found myself fully back inside Ernie in the mirror.  The width of the mirror increased on my right side and Rosalie (as Sue) stepped into the mirror standing in my right, looking directly into the fragment' s eyes, and smiling. The two of them played for a short time, using thoughts sent by Ernie.  The two of them shifted to images of themselves at different ages and different times until the fragment became comfortable with this new feature of the magic mirror. Ernie's fragment stabilized at an age that felt to be in his mid-to-late 40s. An image of Sue matching the appropriate age for Ernie's fragment then appeared standing next to him outside of the mirror. The fragment was a little surprised by this but so happy to see Sue that he disregarded the incongruity. Rosalie and I standing in the mirror, continued to mimic and reflect the movements of Sue and the fragment outside the mirror. The two of them embraced and were smiling and talking in each other's arms as they lifted up and flew off together. The projected image of the mirror surrounding us disappeared and Rosalie exclaimed, "Wow, that was really fun!"  Then, Ernie and Sue (their more whole selves) were standing in front of us thanking us for what we had done. Ernie explained that there were others who had aspects, or fragments, stuck and needing retrieval in the condo complex. He asked if we would be willing to provide assistance to others needing to retrieve aspects of themselves. I acknowledged that I would be willing to do this. Then, as the two of them  were leaving a taller, thinner old gentleman entered the scene.

The man introduced himself and began explaining a little about his own stuck aspect as he turned and headed toward a window. When he realized that Rosalie and I were not following him he stopped, turned toward us, and pointed out the window toward another building in the complex. "My aspect is stuck in a different condo in the complex," he explained. It was at that point I realized he was expecting that Rosalie and I would assist him with retrieving his aspect right then. I explained to him that I was willing to work with him and others to retrieve their aspects, but that I would prefer to do this while I was sleeping and didn't necessarily need to be aware of the activities. I also explained that was time for me to get up, get the coffee started, and begin my day. With that I watched as Rosalie and an aspect of me follow the man out to the window on their way to retrieve his aspect.

Later, as I sat sipping my coffee and watching the morning news on TV I was struck by the fact that this standing-in-the-mirror-retrieval-method was for me an entirely new retrieval technique. After the caffeine kicked in and I felt more awake I sat down on my computer, and fired up my voice recognition and typing software (Dragon Speak) to document the experience. If you find yourself in a similar retrieval situation you might give it a try.

Hi Bruce,

This was a neat experience.  It's encouraging (to me) to hear that someone like you is still finding new ways to do things...what I mean is, I love that there's always more to learn and ways to retrieve and explore.  So thanks for sharing this! 

I especially was intrigued and moved by this...


Bruce Moen wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

I explained to him that I was willing to work with him and others to retrieve their aspects, but that I would prefer to do this while I was sleeping and didn't necessarily need to be aware of the activities.

because it reiterates to me the idea that we don't have to be aware of everything in order for it to be or feel real.  It's still a hard concept for me to understand and remember how important intention is and how much happens because of intention, even if we are not fully consciously aware.  It's so interesting to me. 

So did you confirm with Rosalie that she had conscious waking memory of this experience too?  That's another neat concept that is always intriguing, even though it's not what makes it more real, just more amazing. 

Glad you shared this, thanks!

Vicky
:)

Bruce-

I think a newbie would have some problems understanding some of this.

For example, after your non-physical self arrived in Rosalie's condo, you say you found her "awake and alert."  So therefore at this point it's your non-physical self and Rosalie's physical self?

But then you go on to say that you and she had a brief discussion.  It would be helpful if you clarified which aspect of Rosalie you were communicating with. 

Further on, you say that you and Rosalie "floated along" with the man in her condo.  So apparently at this point Rosalie was in her non-physical self...but the transitioning is not really explained.

Rosalie did not know of your visit beforehand since your visit was caused by your awakening from the storm.  Yet upon your arrival at such an early time she was alert and awake.

See what I mean?

R

Wow, what a wonderful/experience/retrieval and so unusual, new material for a book hey..:)
Thank you for sharing and nice to see you posting again.
PUL. R.

Thank you for sharing this interesting experience. While reading I had the association of a process of synchronization, tuning in to each other, similar to some therapy methods here in the physical to establish a communication-bridge to someone who is hard to reach by language alone.

It fits somehow, all acting towards the robotic aspect failed, whereas to react brought success and made the aspect more "fluid", so to say. It is the difference between yelling for attention and paying attention. In that you showed you paid attention to the aspect, the aspect got a feeling for its own reality.

Spooky

Thanks for the update, Bruce, on the evolution of your techniques.  This is some pretty advanced material.  I'm not sure I could discern a fragment needing retrieval from a complete person.  I've heard that many hauntings are really fragments of people or emotions, embedded into physical reality, who repeat something close to the physical plane again and again.

I'm not sure how I feel about fragments, as I think it makes things more complicated.   I've always felt that many of the great religions teach us that our very incarnation is an illusion (of separation), and that we only think we are separate from everything else when we are part of the whole.  So to have some people break up into post-mortem fragments would be, to my way of thinking going in the opposite direction of love, spirituality or enlightenment.  If as individual people we really are part of the whole, and our earthly lives are only an experiment to separate ourselves from God and the universe, then our dividing into fragments after death makes things even more complicated and disturbing.

Way beyond my abilities, but I am grateful to Bruce for posting this.  It reinforces to me that to get through to some people, we need to be open to inventing new possibilities.


Matthew

DocM wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 8:21pm:

I'm not sure how I feel about fragments, as I think it makes things more complicated.   I've always felt that many of the great religions teach us that our very incarnation is an illusion (of separation), and that we only think we are separate from everything else when we are part of the whole.  So to have some people break up into post-mortem fragments would be, to my way of thinking going in the opposite direction of love, spirituality or enlightenment.  If as individual people we really are part of the whole, and our earthly lives are only an experiment to separate ourselves from God and the universe, then our dividing into fragments after death makes things even more complicated and disturbing. Way beyond my abilities, but I am grateful to Bruce for posting this.  It reinforces to me that to get through to some people, we need to be open to inventing new possibilities. Matthew

Unfortunately, if you want to be effective in helping others, then understanding how it all works is important. The various levels of the astral are no different from the complexity of the physical world and takes a great deal of specialized investigation of specific things... like for example geology and understand where oil has to be because of certain kinds of formations... that is exploration... when Monroe talks about exploration of the various levels f21 to f26 that might be akin to studing geology to find out what might have to be in specific locations of the infinitude of the focus levels...

But, if you want to be free of the physical then all you really need is to understand that 'love' is the sum of the law... all else is an illusion... that is the illusion is the absense of love... become 'love' and you become divine and merged into the substance that create the illusion... so on one level it is all quite complex and maybe not really fathomable in its entirety... but, you don't have to be in the illusion... you can decided to look into your own being and discover the truth.

S.

On the fragment of self topic, I guess I kind of see it like being stuck in a thought or emotion.  During such a time when you are really intensely feeling or thinking about something, maybe from the past that you never got over, it isn't rational at the moment...not compared to your present reality at the moment.

But then you snap out of it, decide to forget about it and move on with your day.  Don't we all have moments like that from time to time?  So it just seems to me that that's the sort of fragment of self that gets stuck.  When it comes to emotions, I could easily say that I have many and that each are related to different times and experiences in my life.  But just one of them isn't the totality of who I am as a person.  All of them make up who I am, but at any given moment I could be just focusing on one of them. 

We probably have a lot of these fragments that we don't even realize, and we probably solve these issues over the course of our lives without realizing it.  Actually, I'd be surprised if we didn't have a lot of these small fragments to deal with in ourselves. 

Anyway, I guess my point is that I don't think of these fragments of ourselves as being separate from us.  I just think of them as being like a manifestation of a thought, feeling, or emotion that wasn't resolved and it sort of takes on a real life of it's own.  I mean, isn't everything we perceive really just symbolic anyway?  It's all a matter of how we interpreter what we perceive. 

Hi Matthew--

The fragments or aspects of self can be found either during life or after passing, in my experience.  Just didn't want anyone to think that shards only break at passing. I've found that they form whenever trauma splits them off. The tragedy is exactly as you say, that during a process (called life) that is supposed to help lead to wholeness and unity, forming these partial identities does make the situation more complicated and disturbing. Ultimately aspects will find a way to rejoin their major piece of self but we are working to get them back together more quickly.

Am I paraphrasing or plaguarizing you? I think I'm mainly agreeing with you  (-:

Bets

I am not sure of the answer, Bets.  How does one subdivide the indivisible?  Love is likely the answer for integration, or to see the divisions as being self-created and "forced" instead of real.


M

Hi  Matthew,

It's not  of the physical. Some say aspects can be compared in some degree to holograms.
I suspect the mirror worked because of an agreement on some level,  perhaps by simply remembering how life works in the physical realm.

We're still learning   :)

Bets

This discussion about "fragments" of self reminds me of something that Seth (or Jane Roberts) said about probable selves.

Namely, that whenever we are faced with a significant decision....take this job or that....marry person A or person B....we spin off a probable self that actually carries out the decision that we didn't make.

So over the course of a lifetime, we spin off hundreds, maybe thousands or millions, of probable selves.  I guess it depends on how significant the decision was.

I doubt that I spun off a probable self over the weekend when I made a decision as to what movie to see, but then who knows.

Further, it was explained that the probable selves are real selves, not fragments or pieces of the original.  So there would be nothing to retrieve since they are whole personalities.

This theory, of course, requires probable worlds in which our probable selves live. 

And further....the probable selves spin off other probable selves as they themselves are faced with decisions.

So we have an infinite number of selves and worlds.

Good thing these selves don't have to be retrieved!!

R

rondele wrote on Jan 10^th, 2011 at 12:50pm:

This discussion about "fragments" of self reminds me of something that Seth (or Jane Roberts) said about probable selves. Namely, that whenever we are faced with a significant decision....take this job or that....marry person A or person B....we spin off a probable self that actually carries out the decision that we didn't make. So over the course of a lifetime, we spin off hundreds, maybe thousands or millions, of probable selves.  I guess it depends on how significant the decision was. I doubt that I spun off a probable self over the weekend when I made a decision as to what movie to see, but then who knows. Further, it was explained that the probable selves are real selves, not fragments or pieces of the original.  So there would be nothing to retrieve since they are whole personalities. This theory, of course, requires probable worlds in which our probable selves live.  And further....the probable selves spin off other probable selves as they themselves are faced with decisions. So we have an infinite number of selves and worlds. Good thing these selves don't have to be retrieved!! R

Hi Folks: I won't go into detail but consider all of this in the light of Monroe's escape velocity syndrone.

S.

Actually Yogi Berra understood this phenomenon better than RAM.

He once said "when you come to a fork in the road, take it."

That answers everything.  No further explanations needed.

R

The answer to the question how to "subdivide the indivisible" as Matthew said is, there is no indivisible there in this case, as here it is alluded to "the soul" I guess. But "soul" is a concept which is so full of logical contradictions that it can't be taken seriously. Two classical properties of a soul are eternity and indivisibility. But along with these, it also should be able to make progress, to be able be purified, which means change. This all of course can't go together. How can something which is eternal change?

I agree with the above posters about the simple everyday fact that everyone consists of many threads. What is thought of to be a soul, or a person, is merely the I-thought-construct which seemingly holds together all the events and threads which are accessible on local databases of witnessed experiences.

From this perspective, aspects of self are a normal thing. They are threads, or traces, of a strong imprinted, semi-causal thought process. To retrieve them, or, in other words, embed them into something greater, where they fit in, is their enlightenment, such as "our" enlightenment would be as well to to be embedded in something greater, and being aware of it.

Spooky

Hi Spooks,

I guess I have no problem acknowledging that we could consider each day, each decision and path as a splinter point and emotional episodes as possible shatter points from which we could spin off aspects of self.  However, like Descartes, when I wake up the next morning, there is a certain perspective of "I" which can still perceive the universe.  Are there countless "I" s spun off in countless directions?  Is each thought form also a thinking individual me?  Perhaps, but my "gut" tells me, I don't think so. 

I disagree with your premise that the classic idea of the "soul" is that it is never changing.  In fact, I think everything we see in the physical world, tells us that we as individuals (as we define ourselves) are in constant flux and evolution, and so is our world. 

I asked how can you divide the indivisible, because I believe in the premise of the unity of things, including myself as part of everything.  I wonder who, upon death goes to a Focus 27 without needing to retrieve shards of aspects of herself/himself, and who will require this retrieval, given this scenario of divisions and splinters of self?

The life review could be one arena to reabsorb aspects of self if they splinter off.  Bruce noted the aspect of the man's self appeared somehow "hollow" more like a thought form than a spirit. 


If the greater "me" accepts something I feared or shunned that spun off the thought form, does that not automatically reintegrate the splinter?  Does the splinter itself need to be coaxed back (as in Bruce's case)?

I don't know.  This is heady stuff.  But I try to keep it simple and direct.  For me, this dive into the physical plane is a way for the perceiver (you and I) to explore under the false assumption that we are separate from God and the universe.  It is an artificial division made upon becoming incarnate.  It creates great suffering, but great joy as well (part of being human, I suppose).  In the end, as far as I can tell, the reintegration comes not from convincing the parts of me to join up, but from my realization that I willingly dove into this plane and separated myself out in the first place.  Nothing is really ever "lost" and so retrieval is really overcoming hindering belie systems and blocks that the perceiver has, rather than truly retrieving something lost.


Matthew

Vicky,


Vicky wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 2:34pm:

So did you confirm with Rosalie that she had conscious waking memory of this experience too?  Glad you shared this, thanks!

No, it all took place while she was asleep and there was no conscious memory of the events.

I am not sure where the idea to form the mirror came from but I've seen this sort of assistance from Helpers come to me before.

Bruce

R,

rondele wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 4:03pm:

I think a newbie would have some problems understanding some of this. For example, after your non-physical self arrived in Rosalie's condo, you say you found her "awake and alert."  So therefore at this point it's your non-physical self and Rosalie's physical self?

Yes I'm sure a Newbie would have difficulty with this one.  Working within nonphysical realities has become so familar to me I don't make much distinction.  All of the activity was nonphysical.  Rosalie was not physically awake for any of it.  She was awake and aware within the nonphysical reality in which the activities were taking place.

Bruce

Spooky,


spooky2 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 10:05am:

Thank you for sharing this interesting experience. While reading I had the association of a process of synchronization, tuning in to each other, similar to some therapy methods here in the physical to establish a communication-bridge to someone who is hard to reach by language alone. It fits somehow, all acting towards the robotic aspect failed, whereas to react brought success and made the aspect more "fluid", so to say. It is the difference between yelling for attention and paying attention. In that you showed you paid attention to the aspect, the aspect got a feeling for its own reality.

Thanks, I hadn't thought about it the way you describe it but you are right.  It was only by reacting (reflecting) attention toward the Aspect that communication was initiated.  And that was the key the whole retrieval.  Observing Ernie's more whole self injecting thoughts into his Aspects awareness to guide the retrieval was fascinating.

Bruce

Vicky,

Vicky wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 10:15pm:

Anyway, I guess my point is that I don't think of these fragments of ourselves as being separate from us.  I just think of them as being like a manifestation of a thought, feeling, or emotion that wasn't resolved and it sort of takes on a real life of it's own.

From my observations I agree with you that we probably all have fragments and during our lifetimes we probably resolve the issues and retrieval some or all of these.

As I have gone back over the experience I realized that the fragment of "Ernie" we were dealing with was a very narrow portion of him.  It was the part of Ernie that held his fear of death, and that is the only part of Ernie that is was.  That is, I think, why this Aspect seemed so robot-like, dull and thin (as in almost transparent).  It had very little ability to think or reason or understand or communicate because it was ONLY his fear of death and nothing more.  A very narrow version of Ernie indeed.

Bruce

Bruce Moen wrote on Jan 11^th, 2011 at 5:15am:

Vicky, Vicky wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 10:15pm: Anyway, I guess my point is that I don't think of these fragments of ourselves as being separate from us.  I just think of them as being like a manifestation of a thought, feeling, or emotion that wasn't resolved and it sort of takes on a real life of it's own.  From my observations I agree with you that we probably all have fragments and during our lifetimes we probably resolve the issues and retrieval some or all of these. As I have gone back over the experience I realized that the fragment of "Ernie" we were dealing with was a very narrow portion of him.  It was the part of Ernie that held his fear of death, and that is the only part of Ernie that is was.  That is, I think, why this Aspect seemed so robot-like, dull and thin (as in almost transparent).  It had very little ability to think or reason or understand or communicate because it was ONLY his fear of death and nothing more.  A very narrow version of Ernie indeed. Bruce

Hi: How did Ernie know to retrieve this sliver of himself?

S.

Quote Matthew:
"I disagree with your premise that the classic idea of the "soul" is that it is never changing.  In fact, I think everything we see in the physical world, tells us that we as individuals (as we define ourselves) are in constant flux and evolution, and so is our world."

   I agree, with the note that then "the soul" can't be said to be "eternal". At some point of our journey we have to review seemingly basic concepts, and many of these publically unquestioned concepts turn out to be gas, such as the concept of "the soul".

Quote Matthew:
Are there countless "I" s spun off in countless directions?  Is each thought form also a thinking individual me?

   In a way, yes, but from the perspective you told of:

   "For me, this dive into the physical plane is a way for the perceiver (you and I) to explore under the false assumption that we are separate from God and the universe.  It is an artificial division made upon becoming incarnate."

it is not that there are countless "I"s spun off, as it's seen that there is only one big I; at the same time, there is diversion, difference, but embeded within the whole.

What the all-day-reality of the "I" belongs, you have said it yourself, it is a sort of infold of the whole, producing "localities", viewpoints. This is what I see is the "I". It is not a solid block of some substance, but a function of associations, a track; but unfortunately, it is often thought to be something of itself, while it's just the locality-mode of existence, the viewpoint, the "here".
   These locality-tracks are what we can meet as persons nonphysically. Whom we meet, and if we meet "someone" and not maybe a radiating, attractive "wholeness" depends on how much "we" are focused to be "someone" or not be "someone". We, meaning our bundle of locale experiences, can only see what the dynamics within this bundle allows. It can be that this bundle appears as one authorative voice (me! me! me!), and then the world is seen asbeing divided into/under other me s , or it can be that this bundle appears as what it is, and then the world is seen as a diversity of activies, traits, traces, tracks, aspects.

To come back to what Bruce wrote here, the integration of an aspect into the self is in principle the same thing which happens in the Belief System Territories, when similar local traits attract each other, or when such rich, harmonious bundles melt together into their higher self, or disk, or I/There, or however you call it.


Spooky

Hi, Bruce.
Glad to see you on the board with a new and very interesting retrieval. Could you explain better the concept of "fragments"? Can't recall if you talk about it in your books.
Thank you very much.
Claudio

P.S: What about a conference here in Italy? I will speak about your job in a Congress that will be held in Rome, on May. ;)

It makes me wonder how (or if) we might recognize each other in the afterlife, if we are fragmented and splintered so much here. 

Will I even know my Dad if I see him again after death?  Maybe the "Dad" I knew and loved was a small part of the whole soul that he is now, and would be unrecognizable.

Makes me kinda sad...

Hi Calypso,

Most accounts of NDEs, and communications via other means show that our loved ones often meet us when we die, and have an unbreakable bond with us, that transcends death and spiritual advancement.  Time and again, I have seen the notion of "grace," the idea that we are permitted these reunions with our loved ones at least for a time, through a certain code of God and the universe.  After a settling in time, after we die, it appears we pursue our true love, and move on, as do our loved ones.

Also, please keep in mind that much of what is posted on this board are people's own experiences or knowledge.  These experiences are interpreted as best they can be by their "interpretors" to make sense of what they have encountered.  Its all a matter of perspective.  We do our best to make sense of it all.

However, the idea that your dad, and all of us are splintered into many fragments, and that you would not recognize him on reuniting is both horrifying, and not at all supported by what is out there in the literature.

We get so involved in conversation on the board, but don't forget that it is all conjecture.  Do most of us have thought form fragments spun off that need to be collected?  I don't know, but I don't think so.  I think for certain people with fear and traumatic experiences, they may carry a hindering belief or "block" with them that may, at times be visible to an adept such as Bruce as a separate thought form.

My feeling is that for most of us, the life review allows us to absorb emotional issues better and come out more aware and more loving afterward.  Most of us can process these emotions without putting up such a large psychic block to spin off a thought form that acts like we do. 

There is an "I" that travels with each of us throughout our journey in the physical world.  If we have suffered, loved, laughed or cried, this "I" goes through it, changing and evolving but still there.  I think therefore I am - the one proof Descartes came up with when he used reason to get at life's most basic question.

Spooky talks of embedding our little experiences in our whole being, and that being is really embedded into a bigger being (God and the universe).  This is at the heart of the nature of the unity of all things. 

When we choose to separate ourselves from God and others, we dive into the physical plane and are born into flesh.  Many religions and people consider this to be a self imposed illusion; one that dissolves when we stop acting out of selfishness and ego, and embrace love. 

For myself, my intuition tells me that spun off thought forms that must be hunted down, are not the rule of our afterlife existence but may happen for some people who suffer from emotional trauma and blocks. 

Matthew

Calypso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2011 at 5:26pm:

It makes me wonder how (or if) we might recognize each other in the afterlife, if we are fragmented and splintered so much here.  Will I even know my Dad if I see him again after death?  Maybe the "Dad" I knew and loved was a small part of the whole soul that he is now, and would be unrecognizable. Makes me kinda sad...

Hi Cal: My understanding is that the afterlife or the focus levels are all intuitive, frequency and wave response systems... if you are in control of your focus and intention you don't have difficulty navigating... what you see in the early stages after death is the confusion of being out of focus and recovering from the trauma of the transition in most cases there is a lot of help from your cluster groups... eventually you get organized and together... I wouldn't put too much energy into developing belief issues that will create barriers for yourself in the afterlife... simply intent to be in full focus and control... do your program work, mediate everyday and probably master the Silly little finger exercise until you get a command of intention and focus.

S.

Hello Bruce,

We have not spoken before.

Regarding reply #16.
I find it interesting that Rosalie had no recollection of witnessing and involvement in such an event. Nearly every out-of-body experience I had in which my wife was involved in, she recalled the experience as a dream, often right down to fine details. Other people too, whom I have met out of body have remembered it as a dream - although I have never let on to others, as I did with my wife, that I was there in reality and though it was a dream for them, it was not for me. Sometimes, even though dreams may not have been mentioned, I have hinted at the subject matter of the oob conversations and been amused as they say the same sentences as they did when oob the previous night. Sometimes they don't need prompting, they just bring up the subjectmatter and say much the same as what they said in the night.

If I were to have what I was sure was an out of body experience, and another person was present whom I know in daily life, and if they remembered none of it and showed no sign in their conversation of connection with it, then I would have some self doubt, either about the reality of the trip or about the reality of the other person's real presence in it.

I am not suggesting your experience was a fancyful dream or delusion, although I do allow for that possibility, for even if it was me I would allow for that possibility, but I do wonder if you questioned her about it fairly soon afterwards, such as the next morning or day. Also, does she remember her dreams? If she generally doesn't, then maybe that explains it. Another possibility I thought of - perhaps it wasn't her. Perhaps it was someone else (assistant/helper) presenting him/her self as her for ease of facilitating the event and minimising distractions. I do think this occurs sometimes. Or may it have been someone else, but you saw them as her, through your own expectations. Or, although the event may have been real, her presence in it was a projection of your own imagination?

I am certainly not casting doubt upon you here; just throwing ideas around as I would to myself if I had had a similar experience.

Another possibility just occured to me. Perhaps a lacking of that type of experience, where others have not remembered, is mine. Perhaps I have not had enough oob experiences where other persons present in it have shown no indication in daily life of connection with it. I don't know how I would treat such experiences if they were common for me. Perhaps I would doubt it all.  Perhaps I am fortunate to have experienced what I needed to stay faithful to myself.

Just thoughts.

crossbow wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2011 at 7:14am:

I don't know how I would treat such experiences if they were common for me. Perhaps I would doubt it all.

Just keep practicing.

Crossbow,

I haven't had very many OOBEs in my life, perhaps five or ten at most.  I was never able to develop the ability to do OOBEs at will.  The method I typically use is just to shift my focus of attention to the area of consciousness I intend to visit or work in.  That is what I did in this retrieval. 

There have been experiences in which other physical folks have been aware of my presence but these are far out numbered by experiences in which they have not.  Also, there have been a number of experiences in which others were aware of me but I was not aware of them or our activities together.

During Partnered Exploring sessions it is quite common for mutal awareness on the part of paticipating physical folks.  The awareness of each other and of each others activities in this exploration technique is often a source of mutual validation of nonphysical experiences.  But in partnered exploring the nonphysical meetings are a planned part of the technique so it comes as no surprise that they occur.  Validation comes, as with your OOBE through memory of the details of mutual experience.

All of this into account, in my experience memory of mutual nonphysical actiivities as you describe is only sometimes available as a means of validation.   More often valdation comes through information gathered from the deceased person.

Even if Rosalie had remembered the mutual experience in great detail that could only validate that she and I were present within an experience.  It could not validate that a retriieval of the man's fragment actually took place as this could have been a mutually shared, or created, fantasy.

In the case with Rosalie described above the only way that might validate the retrieval portion of the experience will be if the man's fragment no longer wanders through her condo.

If validation was a goal of this experience my way of obtaining it would have been to ask the man's more whole self to show me, tell me or give me something as proof the experience was real.  It would have to be something I had absolutely no way of knowing except by way of communicatiion with the deceased man.  Even that isn't necessarily "proof" but it can be very strong evidence.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

It's been great to read your recent posts. I always benefit from your work. Is there any chance you are working on a new book?

Best wishes,
Lakeman

Thank you Bruce, for your reply.

Yes, clear physical plane verification sure can be rare. Overall I think the surest verification/proof we can have as individuals is the benefit these experiences have upon our lives and the lives of those around us when we live out and put into practice the better standards that we learn from them.

It sounds like you practice what I think of as a tune and reach method. I have often used something similar (same?) during meditations.

I find your work with post physical life retrievals interesting. Once I removed someone from being embedded in someone else's brain and aura - that was quite a task - but I had no idea where to take him so I just wrapped him in loving energy that I hoped would see him to the right place and sent him off. I sometimes wonder what became of him. I hope he turned up in the right place. Apart from one or two less interesting cases, I have not had much to do with it. It sounds interesting though - I imagine you get to know about lots of interesting life stories.   

It does seem this whole subject involving OOB experiences, out-reaching and in-reaching of consciousness to other locations, phasing/tuning, clairvoyant visioning, etc, is so wide and varied, and by its nature abstracted from our physical world, that demonstrable physical plane proof seems near impossible at this time.

I would like to say I am pleased to see websites such as yours and others bringing people together on these subjects, providing communication, education and encouragement.

I hope to continue to drop in for a read and leave a post once in a while if you dont mind.

Thank you for having me, and yours sincerely,

crossbow

ps. Please excuse me for not using my real name - I'm sure you understand.

"Overall I think the surest verification/proof we can have as individuals is the benefit these experiences have upon our lives and the lives of those around us when we live out and put into practice the better standards that we learn from them."

Crossbow,
That was an interesting comment, and I will keep it in mind next time I start craving"verification".

I wonder over one thing.

If this was an Aspect of Self, why didn't it merge with the original person? Or did it merge, but in F 27?

Also, please keep in mind that much of what is posted on this board are people's own experiences or knowledge.  These experiences are interpreted as best they can be by their "interpretors" to make sense of what they have encountered.  Its all a matter of perspective.  We do our best to make sense of it all.

However, the idea that your dad, and all of us are splintered into many fragments, and that you would not recognize him on reuniting is both horrifying, and not at all supported by what is out there in the literature.

If the experiences posted on the board are interpretations and conjecture, I would assert that "literature" is also based on the same with an attempt at a framework.

The "splintered" person/consciousness might be horrifying to some , but I would say that does not preclude it's possibility regardless of it's appeal.

PS - A very interesting thread. Thanks to all!